Any idea just how strong the IP is of Spanison? I've assumed they have some pretty fundamental memory IP if they were able to get the big boy Samsung to settle while Spansion was in an extremely weak state during its bankruptcy.

I scratch my head as an observer of the various IP battles happenig in the industry. Is it a good thing, or not? As an engineer, I see the importance of protecting one's IP. If I were in Spanison's shoes I think I would want to fight tooth and nail too and not necessarily settle either.

A price should be paid for misuing IP, but it is also true that some companies get to the same conclusion indepentant of one another as well. How do you parse that? Do you just reward the company that filed the paperwork first?

@EFosters, as to the strength of Spansion's IPs, obviously, I think that's something for our legal system to decide. While I do understand that people are weary of all the news about IP battles, in the end, companies have to do everything in their power to protect their IPs. No questions about it.

We will see how far Spansion will take this (especially on eCT front).

The patent protection system is overdue for an overhaul. There are few truly unique innovations that deserve patent protection. Most are solutions that any competent engineer or scientist would come up with when faced with a specific problem. The current system results in a lot of work by accountants and lawyers that provides no real benefit to society.

Junko Yoshida said: ...in the end, companies have to do everything in their power to protect their IPs. No questions about it.

Actually, I believe there is a question and a trade-off. When a company becomes a patent aggressor, it's often the case that the company has ceased to be a technological leader and must instead live off its existing patents and what it has purchased from others when the company had a lot of cash. Companies with great new ideas and great products are too busy developing those ideas and products to waste time preparing lawsuits. At least that's the impression I get, and I'm sure I'm not alone.

A public company has an obligation to its shareholders to maximize the company's value. If suing over dubious patents besmirches a company's reputation and makes it look like it's on its way down, that's not maximizing shareholder value.

Of course, time isn't the only limiting factor here. It's more likely that bieing big enough as a company to pursue lawsuits while continuing to innovate on the side is what determines whether a company in fact chooses to do what it must to protect its IP. It's a luxury many companies don't have.

In conjunction with unveiling of EE Times’ Silicon 60 list, journalist & Silicon 60 researcher Peter Clarke hosts a conversation on startups in the electronics industry. One of Silicon Valley's great contributions to the world has been the demonstration of how the application of entrepreneurship and venture capital to electronics and semiconductor hardware can create wealth with developments in semiconductors, displays, design automation, MEMS and across the breadth of hardware developments. But in recent years concerns have been raised that traditional venture capital has turned its back on hardware-related startups in favor of software and Internet applications and services. Panelists from incubators join Peter Clarke in debate.